Then Why Are We Arguing?

Everyone agrees that President George W. Bush is determined to “win” in Iraq, and that the Democrats are determined to bring our troops home.

But that is not what Senator John Kerry (D-MA) is saying, according to Martin Schram.  On Meet the Press a week ago on September 16, 

Mr. Kerry was rather sharp and certainly clear in stating the Democrats’ position on the Iraq war. He did everything but call it what it really is — a two-pronged military strategy: (1) Gradually redeploy most combat troops in Iraq as Iraq’s civil war cannot be won militarily; (2) Keep enough U.S. combat troops there to defeat al Qaeda in Iraq.

And when you examine the fine print of the Democratic presidential candidates positions, you get the same result.

Barack Obama: “My plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq.”

Hillary Clinton: “I will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.” 

You can see what is going on here.  Despite their rhetoric, the Democratic leadership is in accord with the Bush administration on what to do in Iraq.  Defeat Al Qaeda.  But the Democrats can’t admit it, because their left-wing netroots have been raised on the strict catechism of the war-is-a-cycle-of-violence religion in the academy.

We’ve said it here before.  Senator Kerry has a peculiar habit of articulating the current administration strategy as his own brilliant idea while declaring that the administration’s strategy is a total failure.

Somehow, I get the feeling that the Democratic leadership is a lot closer to President Bush’s strategy in the war on terror than they like to admit to their supporters.